my last move was losing ....anyone know anything about this one?1815 was playing in a 2min game i was thinking i could play 32 28 then bring up i believe another backrow piece and be ok but it didnt happen

well I first have to excuse myself for I did not have much time and I am not a good player with a good grasp on the game, and so the following short and dirty analyses of your game is faulty, but I hope others will correct my mistakes, and in that process we both could learn a lot!

(1) globalsorrow - Patrick Parkerinternet, 24-04-2004

1.10-14 24-19 2.6-10 28-24 Here you already left the holiest of all three - move guides, Richard Fortmann's Basic Checkers, who does not consider this move at all, but still there is much theory on it published in other sources, and a few published games that indicate that this line is playable, and may indeed be a good alternative. [ Basic Checkers gives 2...22-17 with equal chances as trunk line ; and regards 2...22-18 ; and 2...27-24 as lines that "hold less punch"... ] 3.11-15 [ 3.11-16 22-18 (3...22-17 4.9-13 24-20 5.13x22 25x9 6.5x14 20x11 7.8x24 27x20 lead to a draw in Huggins-Oldbury, English Championships 1955) 4.16-20 (4.7-11 26-22 is Lowder-Bruch, Florida Open 1982, and was eventually drawn.) 4...26-22 (4...32-28 5.1-6 18-15 6.7-11 26-22 7.11x18 22x15 8.8-11 15x8 9.4x11 30-26 10.11-15 19-16 11.12x19 23x16 12.2-7 25-22 13.9-13 22-17 14.13x22 26x17 15.5-9 24-19 16.15x24 28x19 17.9-13 19-15 18.13x22 15-11 19.10-15 11x2 20.6-10 2-6 21.14-18 16-11 22.22-25 29x22 23.18x25 11-7 24.25-30 7-2 25.3-8 2-7 and white scored in n Hamilton-Newcomb, US nationals (ACA) 1937) A) and now three moves have been tested so far: 5.8-11 lead to a draw in Taylor-Scott, Schottish Tournay 1901 and is also mentioned as drawish in Kear's Encyclopedia(although one should never trust a move suggested in an analysis that has never been tested in master practice!), B) 5.7-11 after which 18-15 transposes back to Lowder-Bruch, Florida Open 1982 : (5...22-17 6.11-15 18x11 7.8x15 17-13 8.4-8 13x6 9.2x9 25-22 10.8-11 22-17 11.9-13 30-26 12.13x22 26x17 13.11-16 29-25 14.3-7 25-22 15.7-11 17-13 16.1-6 22-17 17.5-9 32-28 18.14-18 23x5 19.16x32 5-1 20.20x27 31x24 won for white in Koff-Bruch, Florida Open 1981, but most likely the black play can be improved upon!) 6.11x18 22x6 7.1x10 25-22 etc. C) also 5.1-6 lead to an equal game in McKenna-Shields, English Open 1995: 22-17 6.9-13 18x9 7.13x22 25x18 8.5x14 18x9 9.6x13 29-25 10.8-11 25-22 11.4-8 etc. ] 3...22-18 4.15x22 25x18 5.8-11 [ Here 5.9-13 18x9 6.5x14 leads to a position often reached by 1. 9-13 24-19, 2. 11-15 28-24, 3. 6-9 22-18, 4. 15x22 25x18, 5. 9-14 18x9, 6. 5 x14 etc. which has been tested in practice with successs. ] 5...26-22!? After this move I cannot find any play pulished or played on it, and this might be, because moving the "apex" piece from 26 so early without positional reasons looks anti-positional.Ii is however, part of many "opening books" that the programs use,they do not use "positional" judgement for selecting their candidate moves, and so sometimes they find playable alternatives to well-trodden paths.But in this case I suspect that 26-22 is indeed more uncomfortable, for in practice against humans positional feeling and judgement does matter more than in computer games where pure calculation is required most. [ The more "positional" 5...29-25 leads to a well.-known position with equal chances: 6.9-13 18x9 7.5x14 ; Also 5...24-20 transposes into an Ayrshire Lassie with about equal chances, thus: 1. 11-15 24-20, 2. 8-11 28-24, 3. 10-14 22-18, 4. 15x22 25x18, 5. 6-10 24-19. ; And also 5...32-28 transposes into 1. 11-15 23-19, 2. 9-14 27-23, 3. 8-11 32-27, 4. 6-9 22-18, 5. 15x22 25x18 like in King-Morrison, match 1991... ] 6.11-16 29-25 7.16-20 [ in the opening books of the programs 7.9-13 is regarded stronger, and they follow like this: 18x9 8.5x14 22-18 9.1-5 18x9 10.5x14 25-22 11.14-17 21x14 12.10x26 31x22 and indeed, in this simplified position the centre policy does not matter that much anymore and it looks pretty equal. ] 7...18-15? A fatal positional blunder.As a rule, a mobile center is a positional asset to built upon, but a center that is blocked or immobile is a positional liability, just like in chess. so keeping the "small" , but soud center with a piece on 18 controlling it was a better plan. [ Igor Razumikhin rightly pointed out that 7...31-26 gives the chancves to transpose bach to known paths that lead to equal chances: 8.9-13 A move to spoil the white plan of expansion in the center, and looks like the best plan in such kind of positions. ( Note that after 8.4-8 32-28 9.1-6 19-15 not 18 to 15, but 19 to 15 is the right method to handle such positions! 10.10x19 24x15 White has now a mobile center which is backed and gives him more scope in the battle that lies ahead...For further studies the follwing games r of interest:Barker-Reed, match 1881, game 41Kitchell-Wells, US nationals 1929 (Chicago), and most recent:Bishop-Barker, US-Barbados, 2004; also look at another try to now "block" the center: 8.1-6 32-28 9.4-8 19-15 again! In chess they call such standard themes "typical operations", and it is the center structure that determines which typical operation is advisable. 10.10x19 24x15 11.9-13 18x9 12.5x14 22-18 and again White's mobile center pieces give him or her an advantage, though no winning position.) 8...18x9 9.5x14 22-18 10.1-5 ( Note that 10.14-17 21x14 11.10x17 also conceeds the center to White, who then holds a huge advantage.) 10...18x9 11.5x14 25-22 12.4-8 32-28 13.2-6 and we have reached a positions normally "created" by the move-order 1. 11-15 24-19, 2. 15x24 28x19, 3. 8-11 22-18, 4. 11-16 25-22,. 5. 10-14 27-24, 6. 16-20 31-27, 7. 7-10 32-28, 8. 4-8 29-25, 9. 9-13 18x9, 10. 5x14 22-18, 11. 1-15 18x9, 12. 5x14 25-22, 13. 2-7 etc.And a look at my database tells me that Charles Freeman played this line more then once with white against notable players, so his games might be a good source to study how to handle that kind of centre structures! ; But your plan of "backing" the centre was good, but the centre needs preparatory backing BEFORE advancing in the centre: 7...32-28 8.1-6 ( More advisable seems to me the "simplification" 8.9-13 18x9 9.5x14 22-18 10.1-5 18x9 11.5x14 25-22 12.14-17 21x14 13.10x26 31x22 although, compared to the position above, if black had played 7.9-13 instead of 7. 16-20 , White has made more progess, as the piece on 20 is now immobile and the piexce on 32 backs white's centre-ambitions...) 8...31-26 to prepare the thematical move 19-15 9.4-8 19-15! 10.10x19 24x15 and White has clearly the better position. ] 8.1-6 And now white's center is already threatend by the "lever" 12-16, and , even more worse, has no perspective of ever moving without losing a piece.This is almost a text-book example of an immobile center that is a positional liability. 2-0

thanks for the info....i have searched for games but none with the 26-22it feels natural to me and thats why i played iti have played it quit a few times with mixed success but it seems like the way for meto goill just have to learn the right order of moves